We struggle to rationalize our opinions, don't we? We don't struggle with them if we are truly dogmatic or if conversely, we are basing them upon unassailable logic. Most of us, however much we might want to believe we are in the logical camp, will find that if we are honest with ourselves, we fall somewhere in between.In my many postings with people at his site I've learn not to stereotype anyone too quickly. What I have noticed, however, is a small group of people who have one thing in common. There are a few people who can be counted on to pick the leftist position and defend it by any means possible.
How many of you people believe all of the following three things?
1. It is wrong to eat meat.
2. Humans are not superior to animals.
3. Homosexuality is not wrong.
Lots of you I am sure!
Invariably, the argument against eating meat always boils down to the
notion that humans have the choice to eat meat or not so it is incumbant upon mankind to choose not to eat meat to spare that animal. But what code is man obligated to follow? Is man not an animal too?
If man is an animal then he is superior to other animals because he can practice morality where the others cannot. Indeed, if we are to practice the morality of meat abstinence and spare the lamb our animalistic urges then what of sexual abstinence and morality. You know, the kind that suggests it is proper to enter into a normal sexual relationship only in the context of a committed relationship. You see, I find it rather odd that examples of same gender sex in the animal kingdom are used to rationalize homosexuality. This argument flies in the face of the first premise. If man is an animal when it comes to his sexual urges, why can't he also follow his dietary urges? Are not the instincts to survive both engendered equally in sex and food?
Why must we practice the preferred morality of the left and disregard time honored morality?
Stuart Gort
